From: Ginny Moore Kruse <gmkruse>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:15:00 -0600

Mary asked, "Was this a dark horse title, or one that you knew would be a contender as soon as you read it?"
  Well, yes and yes. During the CCBC-Net December "faves" discussion Cathy and I each wrote separately (12/8 and 12/19) that THE HIGHER POWER OF LUCKY was a favorite book of the year (Cathy) or THE favorite (me). However whenever I would recommend THE HIGHER POWER OF LUCKY to someone else (and I did that nonstop after reading a galley copy last May), s/he would look at me blankly and then politely say something like, "wait a minute while I write down that title."
  In the years when a Newbery Committee chooses a book not heavily promoted AND about which there has been relatively little "buzz," there's always a scramble to get a copy or a long wait until copies from the new printing is available. That's when I think to myself that this was a committee with some members who were really doing their job. They were evaluating ALL the eligible books. They were not relying upon reviews and ads but rather they were thinking for themselves about "distinguished literature for children." They were thinking for themselves, and they had some remarkable in-depth discussions during their meetings behind closed doors. Hats off to Susan Patron for creating ten-year-old Lucky (a distinctive, fully realized protagonist - inventive, funny, resilient and absolutely charming); equally vivid, memorable secondary characters; a highly original plot; and the unique rural community and culture of Hard Pan. Hats off the 2007 Newbery Committee for choosing THE HIGHER POWER OF LUCKY!
  Regardless of previous advertising or "buzz," or lack of same, every single year as soon as the Newbery and Caldecott Awards are announced, a hypothetical spotlight glares relentlessly upon the honored books. Readers who weren't part of the committee discussions leading to these award choices speculate about them. That's one reason why these post-award-announcement CCBC-Net discussions are so intriguing. Some readers find reasons to admire the chosen books, and others find reasons to object. It's usually possible to find technical reasons such those Chris raised, and it's almost always possible to point out a single objectionable word. Although articles and even dissertations will be written in the future, at this time many of the honored books can seem to be fragile when viewed in such a bright light. Perhaps that happens especially when a winner was a "dark horse." People have had other favorites, and during the startled first days and weeks after the award announcements, it's easy to forget to look first
 at what to appreciate and admire in a winning book. I can forget about doing that myself when I disagree with an award committee's choices.
  Emily wrote that THE HIGHER POWER OF LUCKY accurately portrays the way a child makes sense of her world. This makes sense to me as an outsider to this particular Newbery Committee's deliberations, as all but fifteen of us are. We'll all look forward to finding out how children respond to what many of us who've had a chance to read this true children's book. I hope most of them will agree that it is a gem of a book, which is also what Susan wrote at the beginning of our discussion.
  Did I miss something, or was there very little commentary about the three Newbery Honor Books: HATTIE BIG SKY, PENNY FROM HEAVEN and RULES. Were they also dark horses, or barely promoted, or just plain hard to get hold of?
  Warmly on another snowy day, Ginny

 
Received on Mon 12 Feb 2007 04:15:00 PM CST